Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Rick Spencer]

On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 08:17 +1000, William Grant wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:53 -0700, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:05 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:25 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 05, 2010 08:42:58 pm Jono Bacon wrote:
> > > > > As such, if you are an
> > > > > application developer and want to get your app in the software center,
> > > > > the process is probably too complex and involved.
> > > > 
> > > > In what way is this new process simpler and less involved?
> > It is significantly less involved. As an application developer, if you
> > can get your application into a PPA, you can then get it into Software
> > Center. If you use Quickly to build your app, it's easy to get your app
> > into a PPA. 
> > 
> > These differences may seem slight to people who are already highly
> > skilled packages and who are motu or core-dev. But we must understand
> > that the barrier to entry in terms of technical skills to contribute to
> > Ubuntu as a platform is much much higher than the barrier of entry to
> > create a web app or deliver an app to the iPhone for example.
> 
> There are two main barriers to getting through REVU:
> 
>  1) Low-quality packaging. This restriction cannot be safely eliminated
>     for your proposal -- it exists for a very good reason.
> 
>  2) Lack of manpower. Your proposal is only going to make this worse, by
>     splitting it across two systems with the same purpose.
For the record, this isn't "my" proposal per se. I had a vision for what
I wanted to happen, and the repository to use and the process to vet
applications were implementation details that actually qualified people
set ou. 

So, for your #1, I think the idea is that smaller and simpler apps are
easy to package.

For your #2, it seems that the pressure for more reviewers will come if
there are more apps to be reviewed. I'm not clear on why the apps being
bound for one repository or another will significantly change that
equation, but I'll take your word for it.

In any case, it's clear from the feedback on this thread that we badly
need to expand our capacity for reviewing in the the community. I know
of a few other projects that are facing similar backlogs.

> 
> > You can use this process to deliver it to the *current release* that you
> > developed it for, you don't have to wait 6+ months for the next release
> > to roll around, and you don't have to master the skills for packaging
> > and delivering into universe.
> 
> Backports.
I don't actually recall why backports wasn't chosen for the repository.
I remember that it was discussed in some detail, though.

> 
> > > Not to speak for Jono, but I was thinking that this was less about
> > > getting into the archives and more about choosing "Featured
> > > Applications" and the default applications on the CD.  The problem in
> > > the past is that it's been basically the Desktop Team manager that has
> > > chosen.  Where as the goal was to have a community process for choosing
> > > between things like F-Spot and Shotwell for instance.
> > > 
> > 
> > No, it's not about that. This is about releasing new application onto a
> > stable release. This was discussed in considerable depth before, during,
> > and after UDS.
> > https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-maverick-opportunistic-apps-stable-release
> 
> Backports is also for releasing new applications onto a stable release.
> A few improvements there would make them just about equivalent to your
> proposal, with a lot less effort.
> 
> > Jono is asking for volunteers for this:
> > https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-m-post-release-app-process
> > 
> > As you can see, significant effort has already been invested to making
> > this work, and that work is nearing completion.
> > 
> > This is probably the most exciting feature to me in Maverick. It will
> > make Ubuntu a relevant target platform for a whole new batch of
> > application developers that will be inspired to write FOSS applications.
> > 
> > Note that these application developers we are thinking about are a user
> > who is different in kind then the developers who build Ubuntu itself. If
> > you are currently writing web pages or iPhone applications, then you may
> > want to write an application to run on Ubuntu, even if you have not the
> > time, ability, or interest to contribute to Ubuntu as a platform.
> > Starting in Maverick, you will be able to do so.
> 
> How does this change things? Packaging quality still has to be
> excellent, and the quality of packaging is the main thing that REVU
> checks.
Because smaller and simpler apps can be built with tools like Quickly
that make packaging much easier. Being able to actually package my apps
and get them into a PPA was one of the my primary motivators for even
starting that project.

> 
> > This is awesome.
> 
> Awesome? Perhaps. Able to be achieved better through backports? Almost
> certainly.
Again, I don't recall why backports was ultimately not chosen as the
repository.

Cheers, Rick